(04-25-2024, 09:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: Because they want Biden to win, or more precisely they don't want Trump to win. I mean, sure, it's a disaster, all of it.
If Austria's chancellor or president just made up a story about a relative eaten by cannibals, I would be deeply embarrassed. Luckily for me, that does not happen. Not even unimportant small village mayors say absurd stuff like this here. The fact that US presidential candidates do it regularly, it's really something else.
The only issue I have with your stance here is that when I look at the alternative, barring a whole lot other problems it's even worse with the lies and the stupidity. If only the GOP ran someone remotely sane and reasonable, all your points about Biden would be so well received. But they run with a habitual liar and overall illiterate and gauche person instead, which Trump is even though FOX does not cover these instances too.
Imho, the whole country should be disgusted and outraged that these are the two choices you get and how apparently the whole system fails you the people so severely. Instead, most people are only indignant about one of the choices.
It seems the GOP wanted to run someone sane and reasonable, but the voters still want Trump.
And now that Trump's family runs the RNC how can that ever change?
If he had lost a primary or three maybe. But not now. Trump is the party until something drastic happens.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
(04-24-2024, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Four more years... pause.
Honestly, this is sad. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
I’d love to know what the Biden team debriefs look like with Biden after his appearances in front of a camera. You think it’s a “You killed it Joe!” vibe or more of a “Good god, man just one time can you pull it all together?”
(04-25-2024, 09:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: It seems the GOP wanted to run someone sane and reasonable, but the voters still want Trump.
And now that Trump's family runs the RNC how can that ever change?
If he had lost a primary or three maybe. But not now. Trump is the party until something drastic happens.
I know. A certain subgroup took over the whole party and the rest has to run with it bones and all because there's only liberals instead.
The whole point is that only allowing for two parties seems to be the pathway to idiocracy and this whole system fails the people hard. Trump vs. Hillary, then Trump vs. Biden, then Trump vs. Biden part 2. I get better choices at every unimportant borough election. No one's uncle got eaten by cannibals there, idiocy like that fails hard at the ballot box, voters just would go with an ideologically close alternative and hence folks who say stupid stuff like that get weeded out by their parties well in advance.
But in the US, sane people are actually forced to defend insanity just to not aid the other side. It's a sad state of affairs and I keep wondering where the disgust about it is.
(04-25-2024, 09:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: I know. A certain subgroup took over the whole party and the rest has to run with it bones and all because there's only liberals instead.
The whole point is that only allowing for two parties seems to be the pathway to idiocracy and this whole system fails the people hard. Trump vs. Hillary, then Trump vs. Biden, then Trump vs. Biden part 2. I get better choices at every unimportant borough election. No one's uncle got eaten by cannibals there, idiocy like that fails hard at the ballot box, voters just would go with an ideologically close alternative and hence folks who say stupid stuff liek that get weeded out by their parties well in advance.
But in the US, sane people are actually forced to defend insanity just to not aid the other side. It's a sad state of affairs and I keep wondering where the disgust about it is.
I have fewer choices at the local level. Politicians cross register and will be on the ballot as both Democrat and Republican in November. Most running unopposed.
But in the primaries I can only vote in my party. When I moved here it was almost all Democrats. Now it is almost all republicans.
Such is life in PA and the US.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
(04-25-2024, 09:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: I know. A certain subgroup took over the whole party and the rest has to run with it bones and all because there's only liberals instead.
The whole point is that only allowing for two parties seems to be the pathway to idiocracy and this whole system fails the people hard. Trump vs. Hillary, then Trump vs. Biden, then Trump vs. Biden part 2. I get better choices at every unimportant borough election. No one's uncle got eaten by cannibals there, idiocy like that fails hard at the ballot box, voters just would go with an ideologically close alternative and hence folks who say stupid stuff like that get weeded out by their parties well in advance.
But in the US, sane people are actually forced to defend insanity just to not aid the other side. It's a sad state of affairs and I keep wondering where the disgust about it is.
Desantis had a real shot at the nomination, but the media expended tremendous effort lying about him ("Don't say gay") and the left literally tore him down at every opportunity. That and the Dems deliberately propped up Trump as they believed he'd be an easy defeat this November. You can correctly blame the GOP for nominating Trump, but the Dems and the media share a large amount of the blame as well.
(04-25-2024, 09:48 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: I’d love to know what the Biden team debriefs look like with Biden after his appearances in front of a camera. You think it’s a “You killed it Joe!” vibe or more of a “Good god, man just one time can you pull it all together?”
Who knows and what does it matter, really? You never know what people are going to say when they're speaking live. My favorite clip is one where then VP, George HW Bush, meant to say something about working with the president on something or another but he says that he and the president had sex. I've got to dig that one up.
Turns out he meant to say he and Regan had some setbacks but he said "we've had some sex."
(04-25-2024, 12:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Who knows and what does it matter, really? You never know what people are going to say when they're speaking live. My favorite clip is one where then VP, George HW Bush, meant to say something about working with the president on something or another but he says that he and the president had sex. I've got to dig that one up.
Turns out he meant to say he and Regan had some setbacks but he said "we've had some sex."
(04-25-2024, 12:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Desantis had a real shot at the nomination, but the media expended tremendous effort lying about him ("Don't say gay") and the left literally tore him down at every opportunity. That and the Dems deliberately propped up Trump as they believed he'd be an easy defeat this November. You can correctly blame the GOP for nominating Trump, but the Dems and the media share a large amount of the blame as well.
Well, I am inclined to agree to an extent, for the part the media plays especially. Also Democrats funded radical Trump-loving republican candidates in the primaries, which to me is an unforgivable sin really, so there's certainly a point here. At some point though, I would expect Democrats to tear down potential republican opponents; it's in their job description to not sing the praises of people like deSantis. And I don't know if their attitude had much influence over the republican nominations in the first place.
As for the don't say gay law, as far as I know it is a law that prohibits discussing sexual orientation in the classroom up to third grade. Therefore I think the classification as a "don't say gay" law, while possibly overly pointed, is not that far off really. It seems to kinda actually forbid teachers to use a term like gay in the classroom, after all, doesn't it? I actually wonder why all those in favor of this law (and I do not think it is the most awful law ever written) don't just embrace it and say, hell yeah it's about not teaching little children about sexuality and gender issues, don't say gay, don't say straight, leave them be with all that. Disclaimer, I might be off on that one, I did not follow it all that closely.
(04-25-2024, 01:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I am inclined to agree to an extent, for the part the media plays especially. Also Democrats funded radical Trump-loving republican candidates in the primaries, which to me is an unforgivable sin really, so there's certainly a point here. At some point though, I would expect Democrats to tear down potential republican opponents; it's in their job description to not sing the praises of people like deSantis. And I don't know if their attitude had much influence over the republican nominations in the first place.
Certainly, at the end of the day, the GOP is ultimately responsible for who they nominate for POTUS. And no, I don't expect the Dems to heap praise on Desantis. But, as we both agree, they deliberately boosted Trump. We'll never know if depriving him of oxygen would have given us a different result than we currently face.
Quote:As for the don't say gay law, as far as I know it is a law that prohibits discussing sexual orientation in the classroom up to third grade. Therefore I think the classification as a "don't say gay" law, while possibly overly pointed, is not that far off really. It seems to kinda actually forbid teachers to use a term like gay in the classroom, after all, doesn't it? I actually wonder why all those in favor of this law (and I do not think it is the most awful law ever written) don't just embrace it and say, hell yeah it's about not teaching little children about sexuality and gender issues, don't say gay, don't say straight, leave them be with all that. Disclaimer, I might be off on that one, I did not follow it all that closely.
It prohibited discussing sex in general, not just orientation. And it's a major example of where the left has gone well over the deep end here. Why would anyone, literally anyone, who is not a child's parent want to discuss sexual topics with children under ten (or older honestly)? Unless you are a child predator this seems like a very easy rule to follow. I've mentioned before that I worked in a group home for close to three years. We weren't allowed to discuss that with the kids, we weren't allowed to discuss religion with the kids. They, being kids, inevitably asked those types of questions. It was insanely easy to respond by saying that wasn't an appropriate topic for us to discuss and that was the end of it.
I mentioned this in another thread, but it's rather telling that Bill Maher, a very far left leaning person, is now saying almost the exact same things I've been saying for years. Given that he was father left than I ever was it makes sense it took him longer to get to where I am, and have been. It's emblematic of the rot at the heart of the left in this country at the moment that even he is calling this stuff out now.
(04-25-2024, 01:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Certainly, at the end of the day, the GOP is ultimately responsible for who they nominate for POTUS. And no, I don't expect the Dems to heap praise on Desantis. But, as we both agree, they deliberately boosted Trump. We'll never know if depriving him of oxygen would have given us a different result than we currently face.
Yeah well, I could never be as cynical as to become a party strategist. But if I were for the Dems, I would be very afraid of the GOP having a normal candidate to run against visibly too old Biden as well. So I understand the strategy a bit, even though it goes too far and is not exactly good for the country, but that kind of thinking might be inevitable or you just lose the presidency. In the end, what I take issue with is nominating Biden again in the first place, and then of course having to defend him when he claims stuff like his uncle got eaten by cannibals.
(04-25-2024, 01:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It prohibited discussing sex in general, not just orientation. And it's a major example of where the left has gone well over the deep end here. Why would anyone, literally anyone, who is not a child's parent want to discuss sexual topics with children under ten (or older honestly)?
Fair enough, but then classifying the law as don't say gay just does not appear totally inaccurate on the surface. I would not really dare to judge the law one way or another really. Puberty hits early these days, and the age where it happens, imho, is the appropriate age to start having these discussions, and I don't trust all parents to do so. As for earlier, I could think of two reasons, one to warn against sexual predators (one can probably find some workarounds to sexuality in general in doing so), and secondly, what if Timmy has two daddys or two mommys. I would not know how to address it without touching the topic of homosexuality, one can substitute sexuality with love probably, but this imho is a topic that should not be avoided and banned completely, for little Timmy's sake. In that sense I don't know if the deSantis law does not go a tad too far, but I am no expert on any of this; I just don't think children are deeply traumatized by hearing about the concept of same-sex couples. However, I do think Timmy might get traumatized if other children call him a freak over his two daddys and the teachers can't correct the narrative.
(04-25-2024, 01:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I mentioned this in another thread, but it's rather telling that Bill Maher, a very far left leaning person, is now saying almost the exact same things I've been saying for years. Given that he was father left than I ever was it makes sense it took him longer to get to where I am, and have been. It's emblematic of the rot at the heart of the left in this country at the moment that even he is calling this stuff out now.
Weird, I often feel the same way about Maher, despite being at least as left as he is I never really liked him until recently where he just keeps saying things that imho seem logical, common sense and in line with my own views, yet are seldomly addressed. Seems he's a valuable voice for the country these days.
(04-25-2024, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, I could never be as cynical as to become a party strategist. But if I were for the Dems, I would be very afraid of the GOP having a normal candidate to run against visibly too old Biden as well. So I understand the strategy a bit, even though it goes too far and is not exactly good for the country, but that kind of thinking might be inevitable or you just lose the presidency. In the end, what I take issue with is nominating Biden again in the first place, and then of course having to defend him when he claims stuff like his uncle got eaten by cannibals.
Yes, it's a shit show and everyone has some on them.
Quote:Fair enough, but then classifying the law as don't say gay just does not appear totally inaccurate on the surface. I would not really dare to judge the law one way or another really. Puberty hits early these days, and the age where it happens, imho, is the appropriate age to start having these discussions, and I don't trust all parents to do so. As for earlier, I could think of two reasons, one to warn against sexual predators (one can probably find some workarounds to sexuality in general in doing so), and secondly, what if Timmy has two daddys or two mommys. I would not know how to address it without touching the topic of homosexuality, one can substitute sexuality with love probably, but this imho is a topic that should not be avoided and banned completely, for little Timmy's sake. In that sense I don't know if the deSantis law does not go a tad too far, but I am no expert on any of this; I just don't think children are deeply traumatized by hearing about the concept of same-sex couples. However, I do think Timmy might get traumatized if other children call him a freak over his two daddys and the teachers can't correct the narrative.
It's intentionally inflammatory and disingenuous to label it as such, as it covers sex of any kind from being discussed. Framing it as "don't say gay" heavily implies, if not outright states, that it only covers homosexual sexual topics. As for being traumatized, you need to know that sexual topics are a rather more sensitive subject in the US than in Europe (you probably already knew this, I would guess). The vast majority of parents are not going to be even a little ok with a child's first grade teacher discussing sexual topics with their kid, straight or gay. As for your last point, kids will tease each other about whatever they think bothers the person being teased. My twelve-year-old nephew was telling me yesterday about the drama regarding this girl, who is bisexual, being mad at her current boyfriend (of two days) because he doesn't respect her choices. And everyone began teasing the "boyfriend" about it. I think you can cover this by having teachers enforce treating each other respectfully, regardless of the topic. Meaning it can be addressed by teachers as well as any other subject can in this regard.
Quote:Weird, I often feel the same way about Maher, despite being at least as left as he is I never really liked him until recently where he just keeps saying things that imho seem logical, common sense and in line with my own views, yet are seldomly addressed. Seems he's a valuable voice for the country these days.
I've enjoyed some of his stuff over the years, but, as I said, he was always much farther left leaning than I was. He has the platform and the courage to call out the current bullshit, and good for him for opting to do so. I stated in another thread that his now literally making the same points I have for years was rather personal validation of my position that I haven't changed much ideologically, but the people to my left have run away from me. A point I know some here scoff at.
(04-25-2024, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's intentionally inflammatory and disingenuous to label it as such, as it covers sex of any kind from being discussed.
Yes, it certainly is. I just don't know how much I can really blame them for that. They fight in a political arena that seems like an Alex Jones rant, where Democrats regularly are called out for being america-hating communists, wanting to forbid to say merry Christmas, trying to ban meat, grooming voters with an open border policy, are in favor of killing babies after birth, not knowing anymore what a man and a woman is, being literally crazy and mentally deranged and whatnot. Where do I point the finger, it apparently depends on initial sympathies or antipathies. That imho is the state of the discourse and I fear if you try to fight there with some reasonable, fact-bases objections you will lose support and elections in this extremely polarized attention economy. It's more of an explanation than a defense really, but at least there's a grain of truth behind it in this particular case, for I'd also say the law affects gay people more severely, since straight couples are the norm every child is aware of anyway.
(04-25-2024, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for being traumatized, you need to know that sexual topics are a rather more sensitive subject in the US than in Europe (you probably already knew this, I would guess). The vast majority of parents are not going to be even a little ok with a child's first grade teacher discussing sexual topics with their kid, straight or gay.
Oh I am aware, somehow the US is both the most prude and most lewd western country at the same time. Which makes me wonder whether the whole idea of keeping your child away from any topic touching sexuality isn't an outdated idea to begin with. I'd wager most children have heard plenty about it, even if their parents are uber-strict and successfully avoid their kids ever being on the internet or on Netlix et al, they still have buddies that tell them all about it. Considering this, I'd rather they get correct information than all the rumors they imho inevitably are confronted with anyways. But sure, as I said it's not the most terrible law ever written, I'm just always wary about any law tackling societal issues and wonder whether it was really so necessary in the first place. But I know too little about it, I do wonder though if it could now be considered illegal if a teacher said that some men love men and some women love women. Talking sexuality in that manner is not the same as talking sex really, and imho, it should not be punishable to say the sentence I just wrote in school.
(04-25-2024, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for your last point, kids will tease each other about whatever they think bothers the person being teased. My twelve-year-old nephew was telling me yesterday about the drama regarding this girl, who is bisexual, being mad at her current boyfriend (of two days) because he doesn't respect her choices. And everyone began teasing the "boyfriend" about it. I think you can cover this by having teachers enforce treating each other respectfully, regardless of the topic. Meaning it can be addressed by teachers as well as any other subject can in this regard.
Well, I think teasing is different than bullying and children of gay parents are rather prone to the latter. Sure, kids tease each other all the time, but I still remember what happened to the alleged freaks with the gay parents and this was way beyond teasing. And I found it good that teachers tried to intervene and fear many might be afraid to do so for fear of being legally culpable over it.
The other takeaway seems to be that 12 year olds can already have partners and a defined sexuality, and I am generally in favor of an institution like school to somehow address this topic then.
(04-25-2024, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've enjoyed some of his stuff over the years, but, as I said, he was always much farther left leaning than I was. He has the platform and the courage to call out the current bullshit, and good for him for opting to do so. I stated in another thread that his now literally making the same points I have for years was rather personal validation of my position that I haven't changed much ideologically, but the people to my left have run away from me. A point I know some here scoff at.
Yeah I have a similar feeling, I feel like a lonely leftist among my peers that develop some restrictive authoritarian streaks, banning this and that and whatnot. To me, being left always was about personal freedom; like a 40 hour workweek should be sufficient to make a modest living so people are free to live their life instead of being shackled to make ends meet, same goes for maternity leave and all the other leftist stuff. Being totalitarian in your opinion and wanting to silence or ban everything that is not aligned with it is not being left to me, but that's where the leftist zeitgeist apparently goes and there lies my sympathy with Maher.
(04-26-2024, 08:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yes, it certainly is. I just don't know how much I can really blame them for that. They fight in a political arena that seems like an Alex Jones rant, where Democrats regularly are called out for being america-hating communists, wanting to forbid to say merry Christmas, trying to ban meat, grooming voters with an open border policy, are in favor of killing babies after birth, not knowing anymore what a man and a woman is, being literally crazy and mentally deranged and whatnot. Where do I point the finger, it apparently depends on initial sympathies or antipathies. That imho is the state of the discourse and I fear if you try to fight there with some reasonable, fact-bases objections you will lose support and elections in this extremely polarized attention economy. It's more of an explanation than a defense really, but at least there's a grain of truth behind it in this particular case, for I'd also say the law affects gay people more severely, since straight couples are the norm every child is aware of anyway.
I can't argue with any of this. I would say that if you dislike the current climate then not contributing to it further would seem like the better move. I don't mean you personally, btw. I do understand the perceived, and potentially real, political disadvantage of that. I just have to continually roll my eyes at the hyperbolic attacks by both parties.
Quote:Oh I am aware, somehow the US is both the most prude and most lewd western country at the same time. Which makes me wonder whether the whole idea of keeping your child away from any topic touching sexuality isn't an outdated idea to begin with. I'd wager most children have heard plenty about it, even if their parents are uber-strict and successfully avoid their kids ever being on the internet or on Netlix et al, they still have buddies that tell them all about it. Considering this, I'd rather they get correct information than all the rumors they imho inevitably are confronted with anyways. But sure, as I said it's not the most terrible law ever written, I'm just always wary about any law tackling societal issues and wonder whether it was really so necessary in the first place. But I know too little about it, I do wonder though if it could now be considered illegal if a teacher said that some men love men and some women love women. Talking sexuality in that manner is not the same as talking sex really, and imho, it should not be punishable to say the sentence I just wrote in school.
It's certainly an interesting dichotomy. I think at its foundation is parents are very concerned about other adults talking to their kids about sex and sexuality. I think few parents are naïve about the exposure kids get to the topic on the internet and from their peers, but another adult assuming that role, even with good intentions, definitely rankles.
Quote:Well, I think teasing is different than bullying and children of gay parents are rather prone to the latter. Sure, kids tease each other all the time, but I still remember what happened to the alleged freaks with the gay parents and this was way beyond teasing. And I found it good that teachers tried to intervene and fear many might be afraid to do so for fear of being legally culpable over it.
The other takeaway seems to be that 12 year olds can already have partners and a defined sexuality, and I am generally in favor of an institution like school to somehow address this topic then.
Yes, certainly there is a difference between teasing and bullying, and that is one area in which I will give the modern left credit. Bullying seems to be much less of a thing today than it was when I grew up (graduated in '92). There was a football player three years ahead of me who used to absolutely torture people. A friend of mine had PE with him after lunch and the dude would literally punch him in the face every day. Like a legit punch. And my friend had braces so it tore up the inside of his cheek. That dude ended up eating some hefty karma, but man he was a literal sadist.
Quote:Yeah I have a similar feeling, I feel like a lonely leftist among my peers that develop some restrictive authoritarian streaks, banning this and that and whatnot. To me, being left always was about personal freedom; like a 40 hour workweek should be sufficient to make a modest living so people are free to live their life instead of being shackled to make ends meet, same goes for maternity leave and all the other leftist stuff. Being totalitarian in your opinion and wanting to silence or ban everything that is not aligned with it is not being left to me, but that's where the leftist zeitgeist apparently goes and there lies my sympathy with Maher.
Once you start reaching the extreme on either side authoritarianism is inevitable. It does seem much more contradictory when it comes from the left, given what should be the core tenants of being a left leaning person. I think we're on the return swing away from the left now and I'm legitimately concerned how far the swing to the right will be. It will be welcome in areas like the criminal justice system, but I fear it will go after some of the hard fought gains made by the homosexual community. It would be nice if people could find a nice middle ground and chill there.
(04-26-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't argue with any of this. I would say that if you dislike the current climate then not contributing to it further would seem like the better move.
Maybe so. I guess it is hard to implement when you see your main and only opponent being wildly successful by being, among other thing, a walking hyperbole. Which again is not meant as a defense, it just seems these are just the times.
(04-26-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's certainly an interesting dichotomy. I think at its foundation is parents are very concerned about other adults talking to their kids about sex and sexuality. I think few parents are naïve about the exposure kids get to the topic on the internet and from their peers, but another adult assuming that role, even with good intentions, definitely rankles.
Well, that might be the main difference of opinion, for I don't care all that much about parents being rankled. Not saying I don't mind at all, but it is not the argument that beats all other arguments. At times parents will be uncomfortable with many things, but if institutions were to consider all of these sensitivities there'd possibly be hardly a curriculum left.
But I am for sure for not being insensitive. Sure, don't talk to children about sex, that seems reasonable enough. But sexuality, that imho is a different issue. I just think deSantis' law takes it a notch too far, if indeed a teacher explaining that some men love other men could possibly end up in court. I can see how that makes people uncomfortable too.
(04-26-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once you start reaching the extreme on either side authoritarianism is inevitable. It does seem much more contradictory when it comes from the left, given what should be the core tenants of being a left leaning person. I think we're on the return swing away from the left now and I'm legitimately concerned how far the swing to the right will be. It will be welcome in areas like the criminal justice system, but I fear it will go after some of the hard fought gains made by the homosexual community. It would be nice if people could find a nice middle ground and chill there.
Well, left and authoritarian never were mutually exclusive. But yeah, I am worried about the pendulum swing as well. And not to dismiss homosexual's rights as unimportant, I for one am afraid that would be the least of it. Unlike in former times, the extreme right wing goes after the very fabric of democracy itself these days, and it's not confined to the US. Hungary hits close to home for me, with his illiberate democracy system CPAC is so fond of, and ideas like that crop up everywhere. And they are increasingly popular while being more and more openly stated.
Just a shame when the other side runs a guy who talks about his uncle being eaten by cannibals. That sure is not helpful, like so many things.
(04-26-2024, 02:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. I guess it is hard to implement when you see your main and only opponent being wildly successful by being, among other thing, a walking hyperbole. Which again is not meant as a defense, it just seems these are just the times.
Yeah, again I can't really argue against this. You've heard me say many times that Trump pulls out the ugly in everyone, including his opponents.
Quote:Well, that might be the main difference of opinion, for I don't care all that much about parents being rankled. Not saying I don't mind at all, but it is not the argument that beats all other arguments. At times parents will be uncomfortable with many things, but if institutions were to consider all of these sensitivities there'd possibly be hardly a curriculum left.
But I am for sure for not being insensitive. Sure, don't talk to children about sex, that seems reasonable enough. But sexuality, that imho is a different issue. I just think deSantis' law takes it a notch too far, if indeed a teacher explaining that some men love other men could possibly end up in court. I can see how that makes people uncomfortable too.
Here's the thing though, having been in this exact position as an adult I have a very hard time sympathizing with an adult who can't just tell a child that isn't an appropriate conversation for them to be having. This isn't a case of speculation, I've been there, dozens of times.
Quote:Well, left and authoritarian never were mutually exclusive. But yeah, I am worried about the pendulum swing as well. And not to dismiss homosexual's rights as unimportant, I for one am afraid that would be the least of it. Unlike in former times, the extreme right wing goes after the very fabric of democracy itself these days, and it's not confined to the US. Hungary hits close to home for me, with his illiberate democracy system CPAC is so fond of, and ideas like that crop up everywhere. And they are increasingly popular while being more and more openly stated.
Just a shame when the other side runs a guy who talks about his uncle being eaten by cannibals. That sure is not helpful, like so many things.
There's a limit to how crazy one side can get without shedding followers. There are plenty of ardent Trump supporters who would peel off if Trump made serious infringements on Constitutional freedoms. I certainly hope we never get to the point that this point can be proven though.
(04-26-2024, 06:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, again I can't really argue against this. You've heard me say many times that Trump pulls out the ugly in everyone, including his opponents.
Apt.
(04-26-2024, 06:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a limit to how crazy one side can get without shedding followers. There are plenty of ardent Trump supporters who would peel off if Trump made serious infringements on Constitutional freedoms. I certainly hope we never get to the point that this point can be proven though.
I find one can argue that he already tried to do that, and that he did not succeed was not a matter of intent, but of competence. Many things might be open to interpretation in that regard, among the select few that are not is that he actually called a state secretary, asked him to find him the exact number of votes to win the state, was annoyed when said secretary did not obey and then threatened him. That is a clear attempt at infringing on the fundamental right to vote, that is Putinesque thinking and acting and there's no real wiggle room there. It was not exaggerated by hysterical media or anything, it was on tape for everyone to hear. To me, that would be a logical point where said shedding of followers should start, should such a mechanism reliably exist. But it did not. Trump could go on and argue that the election that got stolen from him allows for the termination of all rules and articles, including those in the constitution, and no one ran away from him over it either, in fact no one even spoke up about it. His lawyers argue for total presidential immunity and explicitly count murdering political opponents as non-prosecutable deed. I mean, you know about this and some other stuff too, so I wonder how you could phrase it like "if he made such moves". Imho, he already actively tries to make them and that is as disqualifying for the highest office as it gets, but people do not peel off. Sorry about that, but I can not in good conscience not make this point.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
